Posted on 11/21/2009 11:26:20 PM PST by dila813
Aside: apparently what has been released is about 1/2 of the total copied from CRU. We do not know if what has been released is cherry picked and the remaining material fills in the blanks exhonorating everyone of any wrong doing, or if there is more to come. According to RealClimate, whatever is there, it will not be evidence of scientific malpractice such as tampering with data, and that’s good enough for me.
The frame Since seeing the emails we have been responding by:
pointing out that while some (and only a few) of them sound dubious, there’s no actual evidence of anything; attempting to point out that in every case there are also perfectly innocuous interpretations; putting these sorts of discussions in context*
(Excerpt) Read more at greenfyre.wordpress.com ...
—The only way to have real success in science, the field I’m familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty.-—
I think that’s what’s gotten me so angry with this. The sheer dishonesty. Science is supposed to be a hunt for truth. The data is supposed to win, not one’s models, theories, beliefs. If the data doesn’t match your model or theory, then, that’s that. Back to do more thinking and research.
Once belief or politics or fad or being cool becomes more important than the search for the truth, you undermine everything.
Another example of the moral degradation of our era.
lol, ain’t that the truth, what a joke
The dog ate global warming:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=&w=MA
This could be a reenactment of the Piltdown man scandal.
Wouldn’t that be glorious.
I just learned the expression “unimaginable arrogance” here on FR.
Thus, they will pretend, and try to buffalo the simple.
I'm sorry. "Michelle Obama" what...? ;)
We do not know if what has been released is cherry picked and the remaining material fills in the blanks exhonorating everyone of any wrong doing
Yeah, right, the rest of the files are notes reading “Ha Ha Ha, how about those gag files that fill up half of this computer memory, where we make it look like it’s all a farce! We’re awesome!”
****************
LOL! It’s posts like this is why I come here.
Thank you.
Oh!
That was very bad of you!
LOL
Thank these “scientists” for providing us with such JOY! :)
Do you libs mean 'like the data the CRU cherry-picked' to prove their ficticious point? Hmmmmm Hmmmmmmm Hmmmmmmm?
Don't get too exited by this comment.
I've seen no such info elsewhere and this is hardly a reliable source. Since there has been, AFAIK, no further communication from the leaker/hacker and no hint of more to come in his/her original post I think this is just sheer speculation at this point. Certainly not news.
LOL!!
Y'know, the Wookie? LOL
HE LIIIEEEEEDDD TO US --- HE PLAYED ON OUR FFEEEEAAARRRS!!!!
To quote a great philospher of hair-splitting distinctions, it depends on what the meaning of is is. They don't need to actually fabricate the raw numbers. That would be crude. Back off man, they're scientists.
What they need to do is adjust the models to make the numbers perform as the theory demands. And if that doesn't quite work, they can always "adjust" the raw numbers to account for presumed deficiencies in observation or instrumentation, that presumption also being driven by the need to bend results to fit the model.
I found this in the comment section of WUWT:
crosspatch (22:32:47) :
The entire culture around “global warming” is warped. I only today discovered that there was such a thing as:
The “Environmental Psychology Research Group” at the University of Surrey which I discovered in this document while digging into those responsible for creating this document, a copy of which was found in Jones’ files in the documents directory.
It is all apparently about how to convince the population to “buy in” to more government control of their lives using “global warming” as the hook.
If you look at it in the abstract, it isn’t about whether or not there really is any “global warming”. The science doesn’t really matter. As long as they can get people to “believe in it”, that is enough. It is hearts that matters, not minds as is evident from the quote found in document at the first link:
Motivating messages need to hit an emotional cord. People are busy. They resist change. In order to get their attention and support for change, you have to connect with people by plugging into their belief systems. Not trying to rewire it …It is not necessary to be inaccurate or to dumb down issues, but it’s essential to engage people’s passion … you need to reach people emotionally first and then educate them. Hearts first, and then minds’.
So once you have someone “believing in” the notion that the climate is headed for disaster, that it is our collective fault, and only “the government” or the UN can save us from disaster, then they will shut out the message of “skeptics” and actually react against “skeptics”.
The second document is about propgandizing “global warming”. That is the document that was found in Jones’ files. It is produced by Futerra which seems to be an environmental version of Fenton Communications (Current Fenton staffers have worked with Futerra and vice versa).
This is bigger than just science. Imagine if global policy were to be founded based on my research and imagine that I had the power to influence the direction of research results by influencing what gets published and what doesn’t get published. Imagine I have access to a group of people who work in concert to manage the message presented to people and we have a website and we coordinate what is posted and whose comments and what content we will allow. That would make me a very powerful person, indeed. Now imagine what would happen if it were all exposed.
This is the problem with SteveM’s approach. Nobody is interested in the science, really. He can disprove every single paper they produce and it will never see the light of day in academia because they would never allow him to be published. They will never admit he is right, they will dismiss his work because it isn’t published while working to make sure it never gets published.
Global warming IS political. It is being used as a lever to emotionally influence people in order to close their minds to any debate on the subject and allow them to willingly allow the government to control them. And it is one side of the aisle that stands to advance their agenda though this avenue. It goes like this:
1. There is a disaster looming.
2. It is our fault.
3. It can be corrected.
4. Only government can correct it. It is the fault of the private sector.
5. The steps needed to correct it are in line with our party agenda.
6. Elect our party and allow us to correct it.
Our kids are being taught that this is FACT in our schools. What McIntyre says isn’t going to matter soon. We will have a whole new generation of voters who have been taught since kindergarten that the “science is settled” and that “skeptics” are lunatics.
Look in that “documents” directory. It is to me more interesting than the emails as it shows the larger picture.
I wonder how the GW blogs are taking this or they just ignoring it?
Scientists are just another variety of Politician.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.